Rating method and system for early childhood educational programs

ABSTRACT

The invention describes a method for evaluating educational programs which, firstly, develops criteria which will address the strengths and weaknesses of the educational program. The second step of the method is to observe the criteria, chosen in step one, in the educational program. The third step is to assign a numerical value to each of the criteria observed in step two. The next step is to assign an overall rating to the educational program based on the numerically valued criteria. The personnel involved in the educational program can then decide what steps in addition to the assessment can be done to improve or maintain the educational program.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. Continuation patentapplication Ser. No. 10/980,504, filed Nov. 2, 2004, which is acontinuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/057,273 filed Jan.24, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,916,180 issued Jul. 12, 2005, which claimsthe benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/264,149,filed Jan. 24, 2001. The entire disclosures of the prior applicationshereinabove are incorporated herein fully by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention concerns generally a method and system for evaluatingeducational programs, specifically providing a rating system based onpre-determined evaluation factors.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

There is a compelling public stake in education. As anyone who listensto the news understands, however, our educational institutions are notmeeting the public's expectations regarding education. There is a greatneed to improve educational quality in both public and privateeducational institutions. The first problem in improving educationalquality is assessing the quality of the educational program orinstitution. Educators have to show their effectiveness and the chiefindicator by which most communities judge a school staff's success isstudent performance on standardized achievement tests. As is repeatedlydiscussed and debated in the media, however, standardized tests may notaccurately show the quality of education. They merely makenorm-referenced interpretations of students' knowledge and/or skills inrelationship to those of students nationally.

In addition, standardized tests do not take into account themulti-dimensional aspect of a person's education. For instance, thestandardized tests do not account for a student's innate intellectualability. Standardized tests also fail to account for a student'slearning outside of the school setting. There is no national standardfor these standardized tests. Different states choose somewhat differenteducational objectives or different content standards. Further, somestates do not even use the same standardized tests for all of thecounties within that state. There is a national call for an assessmentsystem that can be applied to each and every school in each schooldistrict in each county in each state of the United States of America.

The problem with assessing the quality of education becomes worse whenone's attention is directed to early childhood education and care. Nostandardized tests are administered to our kindergarten students,preschool students, and child care attendees. Thus, assessing thequality of such programs is difficult and very subjective, with manyparents relying on the recommendations of other parents (who may placedifferent values on education) or their own gut feelings about afacility.

Millions of children are receiving early care and education that isinadequate, with many receiving care that is actually or potentiallyharmful to their development and learning capacities. More children areexperiencing child care and pre-school than ever before in America'shistory. For example, in 1950, 1 mother in 10 worked outside the home.Today, more than 6 out of 10 mothers of children under three are workingoutside the home, and that number is projected to increase to more than7 out of 10 by 2005. Research shows that 87% of out-of-home child caresettings are considered poor or mediocre.

From birth to age 5, children are in a period of explosive braindevelopment and growth. This age period is critical to a child's socialand cognitive development. 85% of a person's intellect, personality andsocial skills are developed by age five. Yet, 95% of public investmentin education occurs after children reach the age of five—when the mostcritical learning years have passed. Indeed, our society does not evenbegin its only measure, standardized tests, of education until the childis in the 1^(st) grade—age 6 or 7. This may be because of thedifficulties and expense of testing children under the age of 6 or 7.Children below the age of 6 or 7 are pre-verbal and pre-literate sotesting methodologies are difficult and measuring actual learning inchildren below 6 or 7 can be next to impossible.

The American Association for Higher Education has published an articleentitled “Nine Principles of Good Practice for Assessing StudentLearning”, incorporated herein by reference. One familiar with educationand educational programs will recognize that these principles can beapplied to any level of education.

The first principle is that the assessment of student learning beginswith educational values. The Association states that assessment is notan end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement. Educationalvalues should drive not only what is assessed but also how it isassessed.

The second principle in the assessment of learning is to recognize thatassessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding oflearning as multi-dimensional, integrated, and revealed in performanceover time. As the Association states, learning is a complex process. Itentails not only what students know, but what they can do with what theyknow.

The third principle is that assessment works best when the programs itseeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes. The fourthprinciple is that assessment requires attention to outcomes but also andequally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. The fifthprinciple is that assessment works best when it is ongoing, notepisodic.

The sixth principle is that assessment fosters wider improvement whenrepresentatives from across the educational community are involved. Thismeans getting the students, the teachers, the parents, theadministration and the community working together as one cohesive group.The seventh principle is that assessment makes a difference when itbegins with issues of use and illuminates questions that people reallycare about. The eighth principle is that assessment is most likely tolead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions thatpromote change. The ninth and last principle is a recognition thatthrough assessment, educators meet responsibilities to students and tothe public.

No comprehensive assessment tool of learning that embodies these nineprinciples presently exists. There is also no comprehensive assessmenttool that measures the learning program which will embody these nineprinciples. Thus, there is a long-felt and unsolved need for anassessment tool for educational programs, adaptable to all levels ofeducation, preferably embodying or recognizing the nine principles ofassessing learning, as applied to a educational program.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides an assessment method that will allow aneducational program to be assessed with respect to all nine principlesdiscussed above, not only for higher education but for all levels ofeducational care, and that is understandable to all of the personsinvolved in the process. The only way to approach measuring learning inyoung children is to measure the strengths and weaknesses of thelearning program in which the child is enrolled. Our society's approachto education is backward. The focus of improving education should beginwith early child care facilities and continue through advanced degreeinstitutions. In addition, it is important to note that focusing onindividual students to measure the quality of an educational program isnot a logical method of measuring the quality of the program. Mostbusinesses do not measure their quality according to the quality of eachand every individual employee. Instead, the business focuses onprocedures, training, programs and other measures of that the businesscan control to improve and measure the quality of the business. The sameapproach should be taken with respect to educational programs, insteadof the current focus of placing the responsibility of the quality of theprogram on those who have the least control over improving or alteringthe program—the students.

In one embodiment of the invention, the invention describes a method forevaluating educational programs which, firstly, develops criteria whichwill address the strengths and weaknesses of the educational program.The criteria can be tailored to fit each different level or type ofeducational program. The second step of the method is to observe thecriteria, chosen in step one, in the educational program. Thisobservation step can include but is not limited to collecting documents,surveys, classroom observations, interviews, and other types ofinformation gathering techniques. The third step is to assign anumerical value to each of the criteria observed in step two. In oneembodiment, the numerical value assigned is any number between 1 and 4.One will easily recognize that the numerical value assigned can be ofany range of numbers or letters. The last step, in this embodiment, isto assign an overall rating to the educational program based on analphanumeric (hereinafter generally referred to as “numeric”) valuedcriteria.

In another embodiment of the invention, the invention describes a methodwhich, firstly, develops criteria which address the strengths andweaknesses of the particular level of the educational program. Thesecond step of the invention is to observe factors in the educationalprogram, with each of the factors relating to one or more of thecriteria. Again, the observation step includes information gatheringtechniques, including but not limited to collecting documents,conducting interviews, surveys, and classroom observation. Each factoris then assigned a numerical value. The numerical values of the factorsare sorted to correspond with the one or more criteria to which thefactor relates and averaged in order to assign a numerical value foreach criterion. The last step of this embodiment of the invention is toassign an overall rating to the educational program based on thenumerical values of the criteria.

In a further embodiment of the invention, the invention describes amethod of evaluating an educational program which, firstly, developscriteria which address the strengths and weaknesses of the educationalprogram. The second step is to observe factors in the educationalprogram, with each of the factors relating to one or more of thecriteria. Again, the observation step includes information gatheringtechniques, including but not limited to collecting documents, surveys,conducting interviews, and classroom observation. Each factor is thenassigned a numerical value. This numerical value is weighted andmultiplied by the numerical value to give a weighted numerical value.The weighted numerical values of the factors are sorted to correspondwith the one or more criteria to which the factor relates. The weightednumerical values are then averaged within each criterion to give aquantitative value to each criterion. An overall rating is then assignedto the educational program based on the quantitative value of thecriteria.

In yet another embodiment of the invention, the invention describes amethod of evaluating an educational program which, firstly, developscriteria which address the strengths and weaknesses of the educationalprogram. The criteria are typically age and grade level specific so asto appropriately evaluate the educational program. The second step is toorient personnel involved with the educational program as to thecriteria and goals of the method. These personnel include theadministration, the staff, the teachers, the parents, and even thechildren or students, if appropriate. The third step is to observe thecriteria in the educational program. As discussed above, the observationstep can include any form of information gathering technique. Anumerical value is then assigned to the criteria and an overall ratingis assigned based on the numerically valued criteria. The last step inthis embodiment is to debrief the personnel on the overall rating.

In another aspect of the present invention, one embodiment is directedto a method of improving an educational program. The first step in thisembodiment is to evaluate the educational program by assigning anoverall rating to the educational program. The rating is based onobservations of criteria which address the strengths and weaknesses ofthe educational program. The second step is to identify the weak areasof the educational program and develop an improvement process to addressthe weak areas. The next step is to identify the strong areas of theeducational program and develop a maintenance program to maintain thestrength of the educational program. The last step is to reevaluate theeducational program, at some later point in time, to determine theextent of improvement and maintenance.

The present inventors specifically contemplate the invention utilizingan electronic database having the criteria and/or the various factorsthat make up the criteria in the database. Then, when one observes thecriteria, the observations and numerical values associated with eachcriteria or factor are placed directly into the database. The databasethen calculates the numerical values for each of the criteria and theoverall rating, based on the programming of the database to do so. Thedatabase can be contained in a laptop, such that the unit would notrequire any other inputs. The database can also be placed on a hand-heldcomputing device such that the inputs will be communicated to a parentcomputer through a communications link or the database can be web-basedand accessible through the Internet.

In another embodiment of the invention, the invention comprises a systemfor evaluating an educational program which utilizes means fordeveloping criteria which address strengths and weaknesses of theeducational program, means for observing the criteria in the educationalprogram, means for assigning a numerical value to the criteria; and,means for assigning an overall rating to the educational program basedon the numerically valued criteria. The means for accomplishing each ofthese functions can be embodied in a series of papers filled out by aperson, a paper database filled out by a person, an electronic databasefilled out by a person, or other tools for development, observation andassigning numbers.

These and other objects, features, and advantages of the invention willbecome apparent from the following best mode description, the drawingsand the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The figures which follow depict at least one embodiment of theinvention, and may depict various alternative embodiments. The inventionis not limited to the embodiment or embodiments depicted herein sinceeven further various alternative embodiments will be readily apparent tothose skilled in the art. For the ease of the reader, like referencenumerals in various drawing figures refer to identical elements orcomponents.

FIG. 1 depicts a flowchart of one embodiment of the method of theinvention.

FIG. 2 depicts a flowchart of another embodiment of the method of theinvention.

FIG. 3 depicts a flowchart of one embodiment of the method of theinvention.

FIG. 4 depicts a flowchart of one embodiment of the method of theinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

At the outset, it should be understood that this invention comprises amethod of evaluating an educational program that can be applied at anylevel of education. The description which follows described a preferredembodiment of the invention, and various alternative embodiments. Itshould be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, however, thatvarious other alternative embodiments may be accomplished withoutdeparting from the spirit or scope of the invention.

For the purposes of describing the aspects of the invention, thediscussion that follows will discuss the application of the invention toearly childhood care and education programs. It should be understoodthat the invention can be easily adapted to be applied to any level ofeducational program.

FIG. 1 depicts a flowchart of a method for evaluating educationalprograms which, firstly, develops criteria which will address thestrengths and weaknesses of the educational program. The criteria can betailored to fit each different level of educational program. The generalcriteria that would apply, particularly to an early educational program,include but are not limited to classroom environment, accreditation,parent involvement, staff credentials, presence of a curriculum, andstaff to child ratios.

Classroom environment can be measured in any number of ways. There areknown methods of evaluating classroom environment, including but notlimited to the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R), theInfant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) or the Family Day CareRating Scale (FDCRS), all published by Teachers College Press andincorporated in their entireties herein. The ECERS-R and the ITERSrecommend observing factors about the classroom such as space andfurnishings, personal care routines, language/reasoning activities ormaterials, physical activities, interaction between staff and children,program structure and interaction between parents and staff. Inobserving space and furnishings, one focuses not only on the physicalfurnishings available to the children but to the adequacy andcleanliness of such physical furnishings. For example, one would notethe adequacy of lighting and natural lighting, ventilation, temperaturecontrol, sound absorbing material, peeling paint, and the sufficiency ofthe space. The space and furnishings factor also takes into account thefurniture and condition of the furniture for routine care, play andlearning, relaxation and comfort, privacy, and gross motor equipment andspace.

The personal care routine factor looks at greeting and departurerituals, meal and snack schedule and procedures, nap and rest scheduleand procedures, toileting and diapering schedule and procedures, healthpractices such as hand washing, appropriate clothing, and toothbrushing, and safety practices such as clean up of toys, emergencynumbers, and presence of safety rules which are explained to thechildren.

The language/reasoning factor concerns the amount, presence andappropriateness of books and pictures, encouragement of children tocommunicate, use of logic play such as sequence cards, sorting games,number and math games, and informal use of language on individual bases.

The activities factor described above as one of the factors to observeconcerns the development and use of children's fine motor skills, thepresence and use of activities related to drama, art, music or movement,the play and use of blocks and block sets, the play and use ofsand/water, the presence of nature/science/math activities, the use oftelevision, computers and videos, and the promotion of acceptance ofdiversity. The interaction factor observes the adequacy of supervisionof the children's gross motor activities, supervision in general,discipline of the children, staff-child interactions such as appropriatephysical contact, respect for children on the part of the staff, staff'senjoyment of the children, and the interactions between and among thechildren including resolution of conflicts between children.

The program structure factor is concerned with the scheduling ofactivities, the presence and amount of free time and group time, and theadequacy of provisions for children with disabilities. The parents andstaff factor observes the accommodations made for parents such asallowing parents to observe the child in group and prior to enrollment,brochures or other types of program descriptions given to parents,annual parent evaluations. This factor also observes the provision madefor the staff such as a separate washroom, area to store personalbelongings away from the children, and amount and flexibility of breaks.The parents and staff factor also observes the adequacy of theprovisions for the professional needs of the staff and the staffinteraction and cooperation, the supervision and evaluation of staff,and opportunities for professional growth are offered to the staff. TheCenter for the Child Care Workforce issues publications on creatingBetter Child Care Jobs, Creating Better Family Child Care Jobs and ModelWork Standards for child care workers. These brochures are incorporatedin their entireties by reference herein. The Model Work Standards forChild Care Workers include standards on wages, benefits, jobdescriptions and evaluations, hiring and promotions, termination,suspension, severance and grievance procedures, classroom assignments,hours of work and planning time, communication, team building and staffmeetings, decision making and problem solving, professional development,professional support, diversity, health and safety, and physical spacerequirements.

The FDCRS recommends observing factors such as space and furnishings,basic care, language and reasoning, learning activities, socialdevelopment, and adult needs. The space and furnishings factor analyzesthe presence of furnishings for routine care and learning, the presenceof furnishings for relaxation and comfort, the presence and use of achild-related display, the indoor space arrangement, the provisions foractive physical play, and the provision of space for the child to bealone. The basic care factor includes observing the arrival anddeparture of the children, the provision of meals and snacks, theprovision of nap and rest time, provision for the diapering and toiletneeds of the children, attention paid to personal grooming, and thehealth and safety of the home.

The language and reasoning factor observes the informal use of languagein relating to the children, whether the care giver helps childrenunderstand language, whether the care giver helps children use language,and whether the care giver helps children reason through the use ofsequence cards, etc. The learning activities factor assesses whether thefamily home provides for hand to eye development, art, music andmovement, sand and water play, blocks, and dramatic play activities forthe children. The learning activities factor also assesses the use oftelevision as an activity, schedule of activities, and supervision ofplay indoors and outdoors.

The social development factor observes the care giver's tone wheninteracting with the children, the care giver's discipline of thechildren, and the care giver's cultural awareness and diversity asassessed by the racial variety shown in books, pictures, and other playtoys. The adult needs factor is analyzed by observing the care giver'srelationship with the parents of the children, how the care giverbalances personal and care giving responsibilities, and the care giver'sopportunities for professional growth.

The Model Work Standards for Family Child Care Jobs includes standardson provider income, provider benefits, hours of work, provider-parentcommunication, professional development, work environment, communitysupport in case emergencies arise, and standards for the providerbecoming an employer. These Model Work Standards are also included asfactors to be observed and accounted for in the classroom observationcriteria, the staff credentials criteria, and the accreditation criteriaof the educational program.

The present inventors contemplate using one of these known methods ofclassroom environment to accomplish the step of observing the classroomenvironment. However, such contemplation of use of known methods ofclassroom observation does not preclude the present inventors fromdeveloping their own methods of classroom environment observation orfrom using such developed methods as part of the present invention. Thepresent inventors currently contemplate developing their own methodologyfor observing classroom environment, specifically to streamline theobservation from the intricacies and overlapping areas of the knownmethodologies.

The second step of the method is to observe the criteria, chosen in stepone, in the educational program. This observation step can include butis not limited to collecting documents, reviewing financial informationabout the educational program, classroom observations, interviews, andother types of information gathering techniques. It should be understoodthat, throughout each of the descriptions of the various embodiments ofthe invention described herein, that the data collection, observationand criteria can be accomplished either through traditional paperprocessing methods and/or also through electronic processing methods,either through the use of laptop computers with a database of thevarious criteria programmed therein or through the use of hand-heldelectronic devices and communication links to allow the hand-helddevices to communicate with a parent computer. Should an electronicprocessing method be used in the collection and observation of thecriteria, it follows that the subsequent steps can also be conductedthrough electronic processing means.

The third step is to assign a numerical value to each of the criteriaobserved in step two. This, again, can be performed either through paperprocessing or electronic processing methods. In one embodiment, thenumerical value assigned is any number of stars between 1 and 4. Onewill easily recognize that the numerical value assigned can be of anyrange of numbers or rating symbols such as stars, circles, dollar signsor the like. The classroom environment criteria, according to oneembodiment of the present invention, requires minimum scores, as ratedaccording to FDCRS, ECERS-R and ITERS, as follows:

3.00 in order to achieve one star;

3.51 in order to achieve two stars;

4.26 in order to achieve three stars; and,

5.00 in order to achieve four stars.

The accreditation criteria reflects whether the educational program isaccredited by appropriate state, local or federal institutions, or asdiscussed in more detail in the appendix attached hereto, by anationally recognized professional association such as the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children or the NationalAssociation of Family Child Care. Moreover, such professionalassociations are typically non-governmental organizations, and suchprofessional associations require a child care provider to complete anextensive self-study of all aspects of early child care and education.Moreover, such associations perform on-site visits to assureaccreditation criteria are satisfied. Note that such non-governmentalaccrediting associations accredit a plurality of independently owned andoperated child care facilities, as one skilled in the art will readilyunderstand. In one embodiment of the invention, accreditation isrequired in order to achieve a four star rating. In another embodimentof the invention, two points are assigned to the accreditation criteriawhen accreditation is achieved and as maintained.

The parent involvement criteria focuses on an evaluation of fourteenfactors reflecting basic communication and responsiveness to parentperspectives. In one embodiment, increasing expectations are set forthese criteria as the level and types of parent involvement become moresophisticated. There are 6 types of parent involvement: parenting,communicating, participating or volunteering, learning at home,decision-making or leadership, and community involvement. A Parentingparent typically creates a home environment that supports the child'shealthy growth and development. A Communicating parent typically sharesinformation about the child's progress, significant events, interests,and the parent's child-rearing philosophy and educational goals. AParticipating/Volunteering parent typically takes part in classroom andprogram activities as a member of program “community”, e.g. volunteeringin the classroom, helping with fund-raising, attending family events,donating materials or expertise. A Learning at Home parent typicallyprovides activities to stimulate children's learning and development,e.g. reading to children, making drawing materials available, playingmatching games, having conversations about shared experiences. ADecision-Making/Leadership parent advocates and provides guidance onissues that affect the parent's child or children in the program, e.g.setting learning goals with staff, sitting on an advisory board, orspeaking at public meetings. Finally, a Community Involvement parenttakes part in groups and activities and uses community resources, takesan active role as a community member, e.g. being active in a faithcommunity, being a scout leader, supporting cultural events. Thus, asthe sophistication of the parents of children in the educational programincrease, more involvement is expected from those parents.

The fourteen criteria and their effects on the star rating assigned tothis criteria as part of one embodiment of the present invention isdescribed in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Parent Involvement Criteria Factor Star 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4Program documents providing written REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D.information on program philosophy, policies & procedures Programdocuments orientation to the REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D. program forboth parent and child prior to or immediately following enrollmentProgram reports timely notification of REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D. majorchanges in program or policies (e.g. change in teach, change in fees,change in schedule) and no more than 25% of parents report lack oftimely notification 75% of parents report that program REQ'D. REQ'D.REQ'D. REQ'D. welcomes visits by parent at all times 75% of parentsreport at least adequate Min. Min. Min. Min. information from program onchild's day- score of score of score of score of to-day physical andemotional well-being 3 3 4 4 75% of parents report at least adequateMin. Min. Min. Min. response by program to parent concerns & score ofscore of score of score of suggestions 3 3 4 4 75% of parents report atleast adequate NA Min. Min. Min. information from program on child'sscore of score of score of daily activities, i.e., how each day is 3 4 4planned, what child enjoys, how he/she plays with other children, etc.75% of parents report being at least NA Min. Min. Min. somewhatcomfortable asking teacher for score of score of score of information onchild development or 3 3 4 parenting techniques Program documentsconducting planned NA REQ'D. REQ'D. REQ'D. individual parent conferencesat least annually to discuss child's progress and plans to meet learninggoals 75% of parents report receiving at least NA NA Min. Min. adequateinformation from program on score of score of learning goals forchildren, teaching 3 4 approaches, how behavior is managed in class,etc. 50% of parents who have offered NA NA REQ'D. REQ'D.ideas/suggestions to the program report that suggestions are implemented75% of parents report receiving at least NA NA Min. Min. adequateinformation from the program score of score of about community services3 4 Program documents regularly including NA NA NA REQ'D. parents inprogram evaluation Program staff and parents report planned, No α α α αα α successful activities in these types of add'l parent involvement:requirements parenting communication participating/volunteering learningat home leadership/decision-making community involvement α - In additionto required activities, staff AND at least 40% of parents as anaggregate identify activities in at least two of the six types of parentinvolvement. α α - In addition to required activities, staff AND atleast 60% of parents as an aggregate identify activities in at leastfour of the six types of parent invention. Program has a written,cohesive plan for parent involvement. α α α - In addition to requiredactivities, staff AND at least 75% of parents as an aggregate identifyactivities in at least five of the six types of parent involvement.Parent involvement is an integral part of an annual program plan andevaluation.

The staff credentials criterion observes the professional credentialsfor each staff member with specific expectations for education,experience and position. Individual staff ratings are averaged byposition and weighted and a number is assigned for this criteria. Thestaff to child ratios criterion focuses on the number of staff tochildren. In one embodiment of the present invention, for educationalprogram centers, the expectations of the ratio increases from licensingup through standards set by national accrediting bodies. For full-dayprograms, target ratios should be maintained for 76 of 80 time stampsover 20 days of data collection. For part-day programs, target ratiosshould be met for 19 of 20 time stamps over 20 days. For one embodimentof the present invention, the target ratios are also geared to specificage groups as shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Target Ratios based on Age Groups AGE GROUP Star 1 Star 2 Star 3Star 4  0-18 mos. 1:5 1:4 (¾ time stamps) 1:4 all day 1:3 18-24 mos. 1:51:4 (¾ time stamps) 1:4 all day 1:3 24-36 mos. 1:7 1:6 (¾ time stamps)1:6 all day 1:5 30-36 mos. 1:8 1:7 (¾ time stamps) 1:7 all day 1:6 36-48mos. 1:10 1:9 (¾ time stamps) 1:9 all day 1:8 48-60 mos. 1:12 1:10 (¾time stamps) 1:10 all day 1:8

In other age groupings, one embodiment of the present inventionrecommends using the staff ratio for the youngest child if more than 20%of the group is composed of younger children. In one embodiment of thepresent invention, for family homes, the staff to child ratios describedin the licensing requirements are required to earn any points. In thisembodiment, 4 points are assigned to the family home if in compliancewith licensing requirements.

The last step, in this embodiment, is to assign an overall rating to theeducational program based on the numerically valued criteria. Thisoverall rating can be accomplished using a number of numerical methodsincluding but not limited to averaging, weighting and averaging, oraddition of the scores of the various criteria developed in step one,observed in step two, and rated in step three. The overall rating can becalculated using conventional mathematical tools or can be calculatedthrough electronic processing means. In one embodiment of the invention,the points assigned to each criterion are added up and the followingminimum points required for each star rating is assigned. For child carecenters, as described in one embodiment of the invention, the requiredtotal scores overall rating is as follows:

8 points minimum for Star 1;

16 points minimum for Star 2;

24 points minimum for Star 3; and,

32 points minimum for Star 4.

For family homes, as described in one embodiment of the invention, therequired total scores for the overall rating is as follows:

10 points minimum for Star 1;

16 points minimum for Star 2;

22 points minimum for Star 3; and,

28 points minimum for Star 4.

It should be recognized that the overall points required can be modifiedor adjusted to accurately reflect the quality of the program. Inaddition, if a different basis for scoring is chosen, then the overallrating minimum points will change as well. For example, if a ten-starrating program is chosen, then the overall rating minimum values shouldbe adjusted to reflect the ability to achieve ten stars versus four. Theabove description is only one method of accomplishing the goal andspirit of the invention.

FIG. 2 shows a method of improving an educational program according tothe invention. The first step in this embodiment is to evaluate theeducational program by assigning an overall rating to the educationalprogram, shown in FIG. 2 by elements 11, 22, 23, and 40. The rating isbased on observations of criteria which address the strengths andweaknesses of the educational program. For the purposes of havingpersonnel involved in the educational program understand the process, inone embodiment of the invention, a site profile 45 can be developed. Thesecond step, shown by elements 45, 60, and 61 of FIG. 2, is to identifythe weak areas of the educational program and develop an improvementprocess to address the weak areas. The next step, also subsumed inelements 45, 60, and 61 in FIG. 2, is to identify the strong areas ofthe educational program and develop a maintenance program to maintainthe strength of the educational program. The maintenance programs andthe improvement processes are then implemented, shown by element 70. Thelast step is to reevaluate the educational 20 program, at some laterpoint in time, to determine the extent of improvement and maintenance,shown in FIG. 2 by elements 80, 81 and 82. Element 80 describes a sixmonth reevaluation period. It should be recognized that any period oftime can be chosen in which to reevaluate the programs. Element 81provides the option of revising the programs and processes implementedduring the first evaluation of the program in order to provideflexibility to the improvement processes and maintenance programs.Element 82 provides for annual overall rating to be assigned to theeducational program. Of course, the overall rating can be assessed on abi-annual, semesterly, quarterly, or monthly assessment, dependent onthe particular needs of the educational program.

FIG. 3 depicts another embodiment of the invention. In this embodiment,the invention describes a method of evaluating an educational programwhich, firstly, develops criteria which address the strengths andweaknesses of the educational program (not shown in FIG. 3). Thecriteria are typically age and grade level specific so as toappropriately evaluate the educational program. The second step is toconduct an assessment of the educational program with the programadministrators.

The third step, shown by elements 21, 22, and 23, is to observe thecriteria in the educational program. As discussed above, the observationstep can include any form of information gathering technique. Anumerical value is then assigned to the criteria and an overall ratingis assigned based on the numerically valued criteria, shown by element40. The last step in this embodiment is to debrief the personnel on theoverall rating, shown by element 50. As an option in one of theembodiments of the invention, a site profile can be developed. The siteprofile can provide general guidance to the educational program such asidentifying the organization's needs, program trends and providingrecommendations regarding the general organization's needs and programtrends. The site profile can also be broken into specific classroomrecommendations and guidance. FIG. 3 also provides an additionaloptional step of the development of a quality technical assistance plan,shown as element 60, that will review the program-wide goals, developobjectives to be achieved, identify strategies for accomplishing theobjectives, establish outcome measures by which the educational programcan measure success, and establish a timeline in which the educationalprogram will achieve the objectives. As an additional step, not shown inFIG. 3, the educational program can be reassessed and reevaluatedaccording to the present invention at some point in the timeline todetermine whether the overall star rating improves or changes based onthe implementation of the technical assistance plan. A furtheradditional optional step, shown by element 70, is the provision oftechnical assistance, in the form of coaching and training programs, inimplementing the technical assistance plan.

FIG. 4 depicts yet a further embodiment of the present invention. Inthis embodiment, the invention describes a method of evaluating aneducational program which, firstly, develops criteria which addressesthe strengths and weaknesses of the educational program (not shown inFIG. 4). The criteria is typically age and grade level specific so as toappropriately evaluate the educational program. The second step is toorient personnel involved with the educational program as to thecriteria and goals of the method. These personnel include theadministration, the staff, the teachers, the parents, and even thechildren or students, if appropriate. This orientation can take placethrough presentations, meetings, and other public forum functions. Inone embodiment, the orientation is separated into groups, for example,the orientation of the administrators involved in the program areoriented, the staff is oriented in a separate session and the parentsare oriented in yet another session. Of course, the present inventorscontemplate conducting the orientation in one group or any number ofgroupings, depending on the dynamics of the educational program to beoriented. In one embodiment, this orientation step can also includetraining of site coaches or persons who will be conducting theassessment. It can also include the training of those persons who willbe provide the quality improvement coaching and training, following theassessment.

The third step, shown by elements 21, 22, and 23, is to observe thecriteria in the educational program. As discussed above, the observationstep can include any form of information gathering technique. Anumerical value is then assigned to the criteria and an overall ratingis assigned based on the numerically valued criteria, shown by element40. The embodiment depicted in FIG. 4 contemplates that a site profile,shown by element 45, will be developed. The site profile can providegeneral guidance to the educational program such as identifying theorganization's needs, program trends and providing recommendationsregarding the general organization's needs and program trends. The siteprofile can also be broken into specific classroom recommendations andguidance. The next step in this embodiment is to debrief the personnelon the overall rating, shown by element 50. The last step in theembodiment depicted in FIG. 4 contemplates the development of a qualitytechnical assistance plan, shown as element 60, that will review theprogram-wide goals, develop objectives to be achieved, identifystrategies for accomplishing the objectives, establish outcome measuresby which the educational program can measure success, and establish atimeline in which the educational program will achieve the objectives.As an additional step, not shown in FIG. 4, the educational program canbe reassessed and reevaluated according to the present invention at somepoint in the timeline to determine whether the overall star ratingimproves or changes based on the implementation of the technicalassistance plan.

The present inventors specifically contemplate the invention utilizingan electronic database having the criteria and/or the various factorsthat make up the criteria in the database. Then, when one observes thecriteria, the observations and numerical values associated with eachcriteria or factor are placed directly into the database. The databasethen calculates the numerical values for each of the criteria and theoverall rating, based on the programming of the database to do so. Thedatabase can be contained in a laptop, such that the unit would notrequire any other inputs. The database can also be placed on a hand-heldcomputing device such that the inputs will be communicated to a parentcomputer through a communications link or the database can be web-basedand accessible through the Internet.

The principles, preferred embodiments and modes of operation of thepresent invention have been described in the foregoing specification.The invention which is intended to be protected herein should not,however, be construed as limited to the particular forms disclosed, asthese are to be regarded as illustrative rather than restrictive. Norshould any particular series of steps in any method deemed rigid—thepresent invention comprises the enumerated steps, but not necessarily inany particular order/sequence. Variations and changes may be made bythose skilled in the art without departing from the spirit of thepresent invention. Accordingly, the foregoing best mode of carrying outthe invention should be considered exemplary in nature and not aslimiting to the scope and spirit of the invention as set forth in theappended claims.

1. A method of evaluating an educational program for children ages 0 to5 years old, comprising the steps of: (a) obtaining criteria forevaluating the educational program, wherein said criteria includesinformation descriptive of each of at least two of (a1) through (a3)following: (a1) an educational program staff to child classroom ratio;(a2) educational program staff qualifications including at least one of(a2-1) through (a2-3) following: (a2-1) staff educational credentials,(a2-2) a duration of paid experience in educating children, and (a2-3)college course credits substantially related to child development; and(a3) responses by at least a majority of parents having a child in theeducational program, wherein for each parent of the majority of parents,at least one of said responses by the parent is indicative of one ormore of the following (a3-1) through (a3-3): (a3-1) an assessmentrelated to welcoming visits by the parent at substantially all times tothe educational program; (a3-2) an assessment related to an adequacy ofinformation on the daily activities in the educational program of theparent's child; and (a3-3) an assessment related to an adequacy ofinformation from the educational program on at least some of (a3-3-1)through (a3-3-3) following: (a3-3-1) learning goals for children in theeducational program, (a3-3-2) teaching approaches for children in theeducational program, (a3-3-3) how child behavior is managed in aclassroom environment; (b) evaluating the educational program forobtaining evaluation data related to the criteria; (c) determining fromsaid evaluation data, a plurality of ratings for the criteria, whereineach rating of the plurality of ratings is determined by determining aneffectiveness of the educational program according to a differentcollection of one or more of (c1) through (c22) following: (c1) aportion of the evaluation data indicative of a classroom space for oneor more children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c2) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of classroom furnishings for one or morechildren in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c3) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of child greeting and departure rituals oneor more children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c4) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a child feeding schedule(s) for one ormore children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c5) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of a child feeding procedure(s) for one ormore children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c6) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of a child nap or rest schedule(s) for one ormore children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c7) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of a child nap or rest procedure(s) for oneor more children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c8) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a child toileting schedule(s) for oneor more children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c9) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a diapering schedule(s) for one ormore children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c10) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a diapering procedure(s) for one ormore children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c11) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a hand washing procedure(s) for one ormore children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c12) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a tooth brushing procedure(s) for oneor more children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c13) a portion ofthe evaluation data indicative of a safety practice(s) for one or morechildren in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c14) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of a quantity of books for one or morechildren in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c15) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of a quantity of pictures for one or morechildren in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c16) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of a use of sequence cards, sorting games,and number games for children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; (c17)a portion of the evaluation data indicative of physical activities forone or more children in an age range of 0 to 5 years old; and (c18) aportion of the evaluation data indicative of interaction betweeneducational program staff and children in an age range of 0 to 5 yearsold; (c19) a portion of the evaluation data indicative of anaccreditation by one or more accrediting entities operated independentlyof the educational program; (c20) a portion of the evaluation dataindicative of an involvement of parents having a child in an age rangeof 0 to 5 years old in the educational program; (c21) a portion of theevaluation data indicative of educational credentials of staff at theeducational program; and (c22) a portion of the evaluation dataindicative of a ratio of educational program staff to children in theeducational program; (d) providing said plurality of ratings to acomputational device for combining to obtain an overall rating for theeducational program, wherein said overall rating designates a quality ofchild care for the educational program; (e) providing a communicationsnetwork interface for accessing the overall rating of the educationalprogram via a communications network; and (f) transmitting the overallrating to a user accessing the network interface so that the overallrating can be presented to the user.
 2. The method of evaluating aneducational program according to claim 1, wherein the overall rating isa function of one of: a summation of at least some of said plurality ofratings, and a weighted summation of at least some of said plurality ofratings.
 3. The method of evaluating an educational program according toclaim 1, wherein at least one rating of said plurality of ratings isdetermined using a plurality of (c1) through (c18), and another ratingof said plurality of ratings is determined using at least one of (c19)through (c22).
 4. The method of evaluating an educational programaccording to claim 1, wherein said step of determining includes at leastone rating dependent upon an evaluation of an observation of theeducational program.
 5. The method of evaluating an educational programaccording to claim 1, wherein the overall rating can not reach a highestrating unless said evaluation data indicative of an accreditationindicates that the educational program is accredited by one or morepredetermined ones of the one or more accrediting entities.
 6. Themethod of evaluating an educational program according to claim 1,wherein said step of obtaining includes electronically storing arepresentation of the criteria for evaluating each of (a1) through (a3);and wherein said step of evaluating includes entering data correspondingto the criteria into an electronic database via a communicationsnetwork.
 7. The method of evaluating an educational program according toclaim 1, wherein the step (b) of evaluating includes collectingeducational program related data from at least some of: classroomobservations, interviews with personnel of the educational program, areview of credentials of personnel of the educational program, andinterviews with the children and parents patronizing the educationalprogram.
 8. The method of evaluating an educational program according toclaim 1, wherein at least one rating of the plurality of ratings isdetermined according to portions of the evaluation data for at leastmost of (c1) through (c18).
 9. The method of evaluating an educationalprogram according to claim 8, wherein and some one of the plurality ofratings is obtained from data related to at least some of (i) through(vi) following: (i) one or more language activities provided by theeducational program, (ii) one or more reasoning activities provided bythe educational program, (iii) language materials provided by theeducational program, (iv) reasoning materials provided by theeducational program, (v) an adequacy of provisions for a child withdisabilities provided by the educational program, (vi) interactionbetween the staff and children in the educational program, wherein theinteraction includes at least one of: supervision of a child'sactivities, physical contact between educational staff and children inthe educational program, and (vii) interactions between parents ofchildren in the educational program and the staff of the educationalprogram.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the communications networkincludes at least a portion of the Internet.
 11. The method of claim 1,wherein said criteria includes information descriptive of each of (a1)through (a3).
 12. The method of claim 11, wherein (a2) includes each of(a2-1) through (a2-3).
 13. The method of claim 11, wherein (a3) includeseach of (a3-1) through (a3-3).
 14. The method of claim 13, wherein(a3-3) includes each of (a3-3-1) through (a3-3-3).
 15. The method ofclaim 1, wherein at least one rating of the plurality of ratings isdetermined using one of (c19) through (c22).
 16. The method of claim 1,wherein each of (c19) through (c22) is used in determining acorresponding one of the ratings.
 17. A method of evaluating aneducational program for children ages 0 to 5 years old, comprising: (a)receiving data indicative of a plurality of factors related to anoperation of the educational program, wherein the data includes, foreach of said factors, corresponding information indicative of one ormore of: a classroom environment, an accreditation of the educationalprogram, a parent involvement, staff credentials for staff of theeducational program, a curriculum of the educational program, and astaff to child ratio for the educational program; wherein for at leastone of the factors, the corresponding information includes informationindicative the parent involvement; (b) obtaining a corresponding ratingfor each of the factors, wherein the corresponding rating is determinedusing the corresponding information for the factor; (c) combining atleast two ratings for obtaining a first resulting rating of a pluralityof resulting ratings, wherein each of said resulting ratings isdependent on a predetermined collection of one or more of saidcorresponding ratings for said factors; and, (d) determining an overallrating for the educational program based on the resulting ratings,wherein said overall rating is determined by an electronic computationaldevice combining at least the first resulting rating and a second ofsaid resulting ratings; and (e) transmitting, via a communicationsnetwork interface, the overall rating to a user accessing the networkinterface so that the overall rating can be presented to the user;wherein receiving the information indicative of the parent involvementincludes a substep of evaluating information indicative of at least mostof (1) through (14) following: (1) educational program documentsproviding written information on the educational program's philosophy,policies or procedures; (2) educational program documents providingorientation to the educational program for both parent and child priorto or immediately following enrollment; (3) whether no more than 50% ofthe parents report not timely receiving notification of a change ineducational program policies; (4) whether greater than 50% of theparents report that the educational program welcomes visits by theparents at all times; (5) whether greater than 50% of the parents reportat least adequate information from the educational program on theirchild's physical and emotional well-being; (6) whether greater than 50%of the parents report at least adequate response by the educationalprogram to parent suggestions; (7) whether greater than 50% of theparents report at least adequate information from the educationalprogram on their child's daily activities; (8) whether greater than 50%of the parents report being at least partially comfortable askingeducational program staff for information on child development orparenting techniques; (9) educational program documents related toplanned parent conferences to at least annually discuss a child'sprogress or plans to meet learning goals; (10) whether greater than 50%of the parents report receiving at least adequate information from theeducational program on learning goals for children and teachingapproaches; (11) whether a majority of the parents who have offeredideas or suggestions to the educational program report that the ideas orsuggestions are implemented; (12) whether greater than 50% of theparents report receiving at least adequate information from theeducational program about community services; (13) whether educationalprogram documents regularly include an evaluation of the educationalprogram by parents having a child in the educational program; and, (14)whether educational program staff and the parents report plannedactivities for parent involvement in the educational program.
 18. Themethod of evaluating an educational program according to claim 17,wherein the overall rating comprises a ranking having at least fourranks, wherein the ranks are linearly ordered.
 19. The method ofevaluating an educational program according to claim 17, wherein thereceiving step includes collecting documents, observing classroomoperations, interviewing staff of the educational program, reviewingcredentials of staff of the educational program, and interviewing theparents whose children attend the educational program.
 20. The method ofevaluating an educational program according to claim 17, wherein saidstep of receiving includes receiving, for one of the factors,information indicative of the classroom environment, wherein theinformation indicative of the classroom environment includes informationindicative of one or more of: a space for the educational program,furnishings for the educational program, a personal care routine for theeducational program, language activities for the educational program,reasoning activities for the educational program, language materials forthe educational program, reasoning materials for the educationalprogram, program structure for the educational program, physicalactivities of the educational program, interaction between staff andchildren of the educational program, and interaction between parents andstaff for the educational program.